We’ve moved on to the next pairings in the Round of 16 (or octofinals or whatever). Here is the first set of pairings (vote before 1 PM eastern/10AM pacific Tuesday):
(1) Worcester v. Georgia (31US515) vs. (16) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (436US49)
These two cases are big time heavy hitters. Worcester mopped the floor in the first round with Ramah Navajo Chapter, and Martinez eeked out a close one with Fishing Vessel. So far, this tournament has rewarded older cases far more than recent cases. In fact, the most recent remaining case is from 1984. But Martinez is one of the greatest. I imagine will be close. As if it matters, but Worcester has been cited 812 times in court cases, and Martinez in 1095 cases.
(8) Arizona v. California (373US546) vs. (9) Menominee Tribe v. United States (391US404)
Arizona barely got past Iowa Mutual in the last round, and now faces Menominee Tribe, a fan favorite (I am that fan), which wiped out Onieda II last time out. These are both treaty rights cases, so in a sense, there’s a decent comparison. Which one impresses people more? Hunting and fishing, or water?
(4) Talton v. Mayes (163US376) vs. (20) Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (455US130)
Talton barely sneaked past Kiowa Tribe in the opening round, while Merrion won over Mazurie in one of the biggest landslides in the tournament so far. I think of Talton as being one of those cases that sounds good to law students, but ends up being the reason tribal interests lose cases like Plains Commerce Bank. Merrion is a core sovereignty case. Which impresses observers more? Sovereignty as a defense, or sovereignty as governance.
(5) United States v. Winans (198US371) vs. (12) Morton v. Mancari (417US535)
Winans slipped past Sac & Fox last round in of the closer match-ups. Does anyone even remember what it stands for, or is it that so many Oklahomans are voting? Winans will face a tough test in Mancari, the case that persuaded tribal interests to argue that if it helps Indians it’s political, and if it hurts them, it’s racism.
Turtle Talk 
Did you include – Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903) ?
You must be late to the game. Only victories for tribal interests are included.